Is There Proof That God Exists?

[phoenixthoth]

neither does "God works in mysterious ways" whenever something can't be explained.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by FZ+
The trouble with this, and any "God which can do anything" argument, is the need for an infinite number of anti-magic wands to eliminate all the things that don't happen. In short, this sort of construct doesn't explain anything at all.

Not so. You missed my point let me explain. Using Occam´s razor, the one construct could be simple, a one unit SAS self aware structure. SAS would know how to build what is necessary and eliminate what is not. You do not need more magic wands, only one. SAS would contain in all its parts, as all its parts would contain SAS. Evidence, all biological units are constructed from only ACDT. A hand full of atoms make up matter. A or more protons neutrons and electrons make up an atom. A triangle of quarks make up fundamental particles. And a string vibrate to make quarks. We seem to be delving into simpler and simpler states. They all seem to know what there doing, or we would not be asking questions. All creations have a image buildt into them by the creator. Thats what makes the created identifiable by the creator. Ask an artist.

 

[Infomeantion]

I don't understand how you can ask for proof of something existing or not before you define the terms, but then again I don't understand much.

 

[radagast]

Originally posted by Rader
Not so. You missed my point let me explain. Using Occam´s razor, the one construct could be simple, a one unit SAS self aware structure. SAS would know how to build what is necessary and eliminate what is not. You do not need more magic wands, only one. SAS would contain in all its parts, as all its parts would contain SAS. Evidence, all biological units are constructed from only ACDT. A hand full of atoms make up matter. A or more protons neutrons and electrons make up an atom. A triangle of quarks make up fundamental particles. And a string vibrate to make quarks. We seem to be delving into simpler and simpler states. They all seem to know what there doing, or we would not be asking questions. All creations have a image buildt into them by the creator. Thats what makes the created identifiable by the creator. Ask an artist.

I've no knowledge of any system that designs/creates something more complex (from intelligent means) than itself. Self awareness is hardly simple. This means that the introduction of an SAS adds much more constructs and complexity than originally existed, which begs the question - how/who created the SAS. If the SAS always existed, then the argument could also be made that the physical conditions bringing about the universe could have always existed.

The use of an SAS always complicates the issue (raising more questions), compared to physical cause and effect. A magic wand isn't a simple construct, quite the contrary, it is the most complex of constructs because of all the constructs that arise to explain the magic wand. We know physical cause and effect and physical laws exist. The same cannot be said of an SAS.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by radagast
I've no knowledge of any system that designs/creates something more complex (from intelligent means) than itself. Self awareness is hardly simple. This means that the introduction of an SAS adds much more constructs and complexity than originally existed, which begs the question - how/who created the SAS. If the SAS always existed, then the argument could also be made that the physical conditions bringing about the universe could have always existed.

You show in your profile that you are a chemist or interested in its studies.
The development of a gene into a protein, is a good way to understand and comprehend SAS, as the units used in its construction, can be physically seen by us, in the objective world.
A gene can produce not only a protein but a exponential quantity of different types, to effect its end, that is for the biological entity to persist, develope and function. The knowledge in one unit seems to be in all units. On this level SAS is complex in its finished product and simple in its basic construct the gene. This same factor is seen on all levels of the evolutive chain from strings to humans. The farther we delve into the micro the simpler the basic constuct. The knowledge to build complexity is in the simplest constructs.

The use of an SAS always complicates the issue (raising more questions), compared to physical cause and effect. A magic wand isn't a simple construct, quite the contrary, it is the most complex of constructs because of all the constructs that arise to explain the magic wand. We know physical cause and effect and physical laws exist. The same cannot be said of an SAS.

If SAS was more complicated, the smaller we delve, that would be true, but we do not find the micro more complicated, than the macro, it is the opposite. Your making the word construct into the word axiom. A construct is a tool that links the laws of the axioms in the builing block. An example to build a wall of bricks you need a constuct=brick and you need fouraxioms=up,down,left,right

 

[radagast]

Radar,
The basic idea of a simple SAS is self-contradictory. Self-awareness involves vast complexities. Hell, simple brain functions are not simple (sentience), consciousness orders of magnitude more complex, and self-awareness an order of magnitude ahead of even that.

Many physical aspects of reality, similar to what you mention with genes, with the self-organizing nature of certain aspects of reality, and like, are all excellent examples of how the universe came into the state it's in now. The problem is when you start giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence (other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.

Simple would circumvent Occam, highly complex adds the questions and conditions that trigger Occam. If you can give me an example of a simple self-aware system, then I would be happy to concede Occam doesn't necessarily apply to this argument.

 

[agnostictheist]

General

Not that I have read all the posts, but a small point:

Occam´s razor, IS not the simplist explination is simply the
best one. rather if we have two expinations, that say fit a given
set of data. We pick the one with the less premises, because simply
put we have to "back up" less!

sometimes the simple answer is bassed on ignorance or worse still,
plane flat out wrong!

 

[EvilPoet]

"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universe, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expences of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history." -Lazarus Long

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by radagast
Radar, Rader
The basic idea of a simple SAS is self-contradictory. Self-awareness involves vast complexities. Hell, simple brain functions are not simple (sentience), consciousness orders of magnitude more complex, and self-awareness an order of magnitude ahead of even that.

Why is it? Everytime you drop to another evolutive level, SAS is simpler. I am talking about SAS on all levels not just biological levels with brains.

Many physical aspects of reality, similar to what you mention with genes, with the self-organizing nature of certain aspects of reality, and like, are all excellent examples of how the universe came into the state it's in now. The problem is when you start giving it high magnitutde properties, such as consciousness and self-awareness. Given we do know of physical mechanisms that are responsible for much of the current universe, and given no evidence(other than unknowns presented in the universes complexity - i.e. which is only interpreted as evidence by those wishing it to be evidence), then a non-aware physical mechanism is always a simpler, cleaner explanation, compared to created by an self-aware entity. Hence my invocation of Occam.

Self awareness is a gifted property, unique of humans, that for now, we can only test in humans. In can be argued though, that physical mechanisms are self aware, but not the way humans are. Is not the atom self aware of electo-magnetic covalent bonding. Its self aware of nothing else. The constuct is its bonding and the axioms are the properties of the atom. This is by far much simpler than a gene.

Simple would circumvent Occam, highly complex adds the questions and conditions that trigger Occam. If you can give me an example of a simple self-aware system, then I would be happy to concede Occam doesn't necessarily apply to this argument.

Any system that is simpler than the next complex system is an example.

 

[Rader]

Originally posted by EvilPoet
"The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universe, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expences of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history." -Lazarus Long

The quickest way to convert an atheist is, send him on patrol in Iraq.

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Rader
The quickest way to convert an atheist is, send him on patrol in Iraq.

Yes, short out reason and critical, discriminating thought and the need for evidence by going straight for the primal drives: start with fear then introduce unconditional love and forgiveness as an escape from that fear.

 

[phoenixthoth]

short it out?

it seem to me that there's a short if reason and critical, discriminating thought and the need for evidence is thought to be an infinitely powerful tool able to figure everything out.

seems to me that it's quite the opposite of it shorting out to realize that there are limits to reason and critical, discriminating thought. is that to say that reason and critical thought should be thrown out the window completely or just on something, one thing in fact, which, by definition practically, cannot succumb to the analytical knife?

 

[Mumeishi]

Seems unlikely to me. ;)

Your argument is based on the word 'seems'.

Seems like your thoughts are being controlled by aliens from Uranus.

 

[Royce]

The following is what I understand and believe to be true. The entity whom some of us call God, the creator is outside of time and space. This in not magical or special. It simply means that God is not of objective material reality. Thus there is no emperical evidence that he does or does not exist.
There is however more to the universe and reality than the objective material universe that we can see and measure. There is no emberical evidence that I exist either. Yes my body is material but what and who and where is Royce, the entity that dwells in that body, is conscious and self aware? There is no way that I or anyone can prove that they exist to another. Yet I am not hiding nor withdrawn. There is no evidence other than my posts that any of you can see or measure that proves that I, Royce, exist in objective reality. I assure you that I, or at least my body, do exist and interact with objective material reality.
I have often wondered why an agnostic or athiest would look at science, the objective material world for emperical evidence of the exiestence of a subjective spiritual being. Is this logical. It reminds me of an old joke: A drunk was down on his ands and knees under a street light looking for something. A cop comes by and asks him what he is doing. The drunk says I'm looking for my keys. The cop asks where he lost them. The drunk says over there pointing down the street. "Well if you lost them over there why are you looking here?"; the cop asks. "Because the light is better here."; says the drunk.
The point: Don't look where God ain't. Look where you will find him. He isn't hiding; he simply is not where your looking.

 

[Mumeishi]

In other words, there's no evidence, but you have some excuses. Yet the validity of the excuses is based on the presupposition of the existence of this entity and of its having certain characteristics. You have to demonstrate the existence of the thing before you can show that it exists outside space and time and is totally (and conveniently) undetectable in various ways remember?

 

[phoenixthoth]

Seems unlikely to me. ;)

Your argument is based on the word 'seems'.

Seems like your thoughts are being controlled by aliens from Uranus.

you're very incorrect if you thought that was an argument especially if it was meant to be an argument for the existence of God.

furthermore, the argument behind ALL arguments of science are based on the word 'seems.' gravity SEEMS to operate in an inverse sqare law or space-time SEEMS to be curved or my research SEEMS to be sound and SEEMS to be objective and my logic SEEMS to be limitless and what i wrote SEEMS to be an argument for the existence of God which SEEMS to be incorrect in addition to my thoughts being controlled by aliens SEEMS to be incorrect and we will SEEM to forget that what we consider "evidence" is what SEEMS to be evidence though we only underscore the word SEEM when we think it's a crackpot theory, suggesting that what is considered to be evidence is only what SEEMS to be evidence when it SEEMINGLY suits us and SEEM to forget that we always know that evidence only SEEMS to be evidence.

stop me if i seem to be wrong. i hope you can see the trap that seems to set. if you seem to think I'm wrong, then you may have proved the point that i only seem to be wrong and if you don't stop me then I'm right. either way, i win. at least i win until i underscore the word seems in, "i hope you can see the trap that seems to set."

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Mumeishi
In other words, there's no evidence, but you have some excuses. Yet the validity of the excuses is based on the presupposition of the existence of this entity and of its having certain characteristics. You have to demonstrate the existence of the thing before you can show that it exists outside space and time and is totally (and conveniently) undetectable in various ways remember?

The words I wrote was that there is no emperical evidence, not that there was no evidence. I realize that nonemperical evidence is unacceptable to some and constitutes no evidence at all.
I do not presuppose the existence of God. When I was young I was agnostic. As I got older and began looking around and meditating I had personal experiences which convinced me of the existence of God, that God is the creator and master of the universe and the sourse of life, love, light and truth. I do not believe in biblical genesis or creationism.
Thru meditation and study I began to realize the the material universe was not all of reality but only one aspect of reality.
I don't have to do anything to demonstrate the reality of God; nor, can I in any way that would be acceptable to you or anyone else. You have to experience alternate realities and God for yourself in order to believe or be convinced. I am saying that we cannot and will not find God under a microscope or in a particle accelerator.
Yet if you believe, and that is the prerequisite, you will see God everywhere you look and wonder why others cannot see him/it.
Any and all material objectivists, as long as they refuse to look or accept that there is more to reality than what they can see and measure, will never find evidence of God. Nor, will they be able to understand those that do believe. It is appearantly a human condition to ridicule and belittle that which we can't understand.
Thus religion is the opiate of the masses, we who do know or believe are deluded or charlitans deluding others, or just plain stupid.
Need I say that it is a two-way road.
However, some of us who have been there, understand.

 

[Mumeishi]

Phoenix,

Good point. We don't know anything with absolute certainty, so all our understanding is ultimately based on how things appear. But its essential to note that there are ways to eliminate much bias and subjective distortion, that science is based on objective verification meaning that the same experiment should produce the same relults no matter who does it. Purely subjective experiences are not admissable as evidence because they contradict one another and without additional verification they may be no more than psychological events.

 

[Mumeishi]

Royce,

No matter how persuasive they seem, subjective experiences on their own have no value as evidence. Take a walk into a mental institution to find out why. Someone may have a personal experience that convinces him that he is John the Baptist, or that aliens are controlling his brain. Someone may have a personal experience that God loves her and another person may have a personal experience that he is the incarnation of Aten the one true god of the sun. They could have a subjective experience that they were flying or able to turn into a jaguar or invincible. I could go on.

 

[Rader]

Ethics ontology epistemology

The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

The epistemologic reason is knowledge of it is everywhere. The parameters for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator. Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse. Human consciousness increases not decreases.

If that was not the case. THEN GOD DOES NOT EXIST

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Rader
The ethical reason for God existing is that there is those who do not believe.

Not only does that make no sense, but its pure supposition.

The ontologic reason is human consciousness is aware of the I, the world and the God.

Again, pure supposition. Anyway not eveyone is aware of (a sense of) God, because not everyone believes and not everyone was born into a Judeo-Christian culture.

[The epistemologic reason is knowledge of it is everywhere. The parameteres for our existence are set so fine, that not time or chance or anything else but a creator can account for it. Creation is a mirror of its creator. Complexity can not evolve from simplicity without a reason. We are all aware of the reason. Goodwill and badwill do not mean what they do for no reaon. The world strives to be better not worse. Human consciousness increases not decreases.

So, the evidence for God's existence is that the only explanation you can think of / comprehend is that a huge invisible being did it? I've never heard an adequate explanation of why anyway. Complexity emerges from simplicity all the time - the term is 'emergent complexity'. Look at the Mandelbrot set, look at the Game of Life, look at a game of chess.

 

[Royce]

Mumeishi, of course you could go on and on (and frequently do ) as could I. Your post affirms just what I said in my last post. My personal experience is unacceptable to anyone and everyone else just as are yours or anyone else's . I may well be just as crazy and deluded as those poor souls in the mental institution. I often wonder and have doubts myself.
My one and only point is that there is "more under the stars than is drempt of by your philosophers, Horatio." Just because you see no evidence of anything proves only that you are looking in the wrong place. If we look only at the physical we see only the physical.
If the only tool that we have is a hammer then we treat everything as if it is a nail (to borrow a phrase from Les). That is my point. As I said in my first post in this thread, there is no proof of God nor can anyone prove the existence of God to anyone else. The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.

 

[Rader]

The reality of God must be experienced by oneself.

Never better stated. It comes down to consciounsess you either are or are not conscious that God exists. When you reach that level of consciousness you will be conscious of it.

 

[Mumeishi]

*sighs*

 

[Infomeantion]

I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?

 

[Merlin]

the big bang and religion

There should be a balance between religion and science. Neither can answer the big question conclusively. I agree with most contemporary cosmological models, and mainstream theories going back to the Big Bang.
The question is ,how does this infinite point become this universe, and what started the process? BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

I have read and understand most of the major theories, all have fatal flaws. Science should strive to describe our universe,and embrace the metaphysical. I suspect (know) that the "spooky action at distance" (Einstein skeptically lamenting collapse of the wave function)and the metaphysical will become part of TOE![/color]

Merlin[/color][/size]

 

[Mumeishi]

Originally posted by Infomeantion
I have enjoyed reading these posts the past few days, but I wonder how similar a thread entitled "Whats the proof that proof exists?" would grow. Perhaps we could start one and see, hmm?

AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

 

[Mumeishi]

BTW,Mr. Scientist, what was "before" space time and the B.B.?

The BB theory doesn't go beyond that point.

Time and the space dimensions of our universe are properties of it and not something that it sits in. Thus, there was no 'before' time began.

We can conjecture some other time-like dimensions outside the universe, but it may be intrinsically unknowable.

 

[Infomeantion]

----------------------------------------------------------------
AFAIK,
(if you mean absolute proof as opposed to 'beyond reasonable doubt)
there is no proof that proof exists
there is no evidence that proof exists
there is evidence that proof does not exist (but not proof),

'Proof' is a much-misused term. There is no proof in science, except to mean 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Just some silly questions that come to mind:

Is there evidence that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' exists?
Is there evidence that evidence exists?
Is 'proof', meaning 'beyond reasonable doubt', a keystone in science or is it called reproducability?
How does that reproducability transmogrify into 'beyond reasonable doubt'?
What came first the chicken or the neutron? (Hint: which chicken?)

Sorry, but like I said, I've enjoyed these posts and yours as well, so you can just ignore the chicken one if you want.

 

[Mumeishi]

I suppose you can go into an endless spiral of skepticism if you're really keen, but I don't think I'll be coming along.